Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

You mean a repacked re-issue to sell more books along side of Britannica. Doesn't mean that the original was different. Anyone having a real copy of it would have known that.

QUOTE(culeaker @ Mon 19th November 2012, 12:47pm)

It has been available in two versions. One is as a single huge volume. The other, given away as a supplement to some sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, is indeed in three volumes. It is identical to the one volume version, except that it has a multi-language dictionary as asupplement, occupying around half of the third volume.

I pointed out that they removed items like jargon, proper nouns, and other items that used to be part of their dictionary to make it more for lower level individuals while the Collegiate edition retained many of them to target a more academic audience.

You are abso-bloody-lutely mad! Give me one word - one ruddy word - that was in the old Unabridged that's not in the Third International but is in the main part of the Collegiate.

This post has been edited by Retrospect: Mon 19th November 2012, 7:52pm

You keep misusing that word, you know. "Ruddy" isn't used in the way you keep insisting on using it. You have already been proven to not have a clue, and now it is proven that you aren't actually British. We already have lots of proof that you are Vigilant trolling us. The other site might tolerate your antics, but that is because they are trolls. Go back home.

QUOTE

Give me one word - one ruddy word - that was in the old Unabridged that's not in the Third International

Already quoted where words like Knights of the Round Table are in Collegiate and were excised from the Third. You obviously can't read. "Some proper names were returned to the word list, including names of Knights of the Round Table." How can you miss something so obviously stated? Either you are completely stupid, a horrible troll, or both. Either way, you really make yourself look bad.

Funny. You claim that I couldn't produce one word. I point out that I already did and that you were too ignorant to be able to read. So you then try to hide from it.

Well guess what? You aren't able to hide from it. You were wrong. Your were consistently wrong. You aren't even British. You are just a pathetic, ignorant troll and everyone here knows it now. Bug off.

Let's be fair to Ottava. He has a point. The Collegiate does indeed contain a number of very short encyclopaedia-type entries that don't really belong in a dictionary. However, that's a long way from saying that the Collegiate is an unabridged dictionary. Of course it is; it is meant to be a convenient medium-sized dictionary, and indeed has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. The idea that these very short encyclopaedia-type entries that don't really belong in a dictionary make the Collegiate somehow a more scholarly reference work than the Third New International is of course risible, as is the idea that the Third New International is in any way simplified or just intended for foreigners.

What you should have said is that the Collegiate contains no words other than proper nouns that were in the New International yet were omitted from the Third New International.

This post has been edited by Detective: Tue 20th November 2012, 8:26pm

Let's be fair to Ottava. He has a point. The Collegiate does indeed contain a number of very short encyclopaedia-type entries that don't really belong in a dictionary. However, that's a long way from saying that

Gawain. Many dictionaries have proper nouns without an "encyclopedic entry." Dictionaries define commonly used words, encyclopedias go into detail about their background.

Anyway, as we all know, there's no point discussing things with Ottava. That's why he gets blocked all over the place. He's wrong, of course, which is why so many of his WP articles have to be completely rewritten.

Anyway, as we all know, there's no point discussing things with Ottava. That's why he gets blocked all over the place. He's wrong, of course, which is why so many of his WP articles have to be completely rewritten.

Lets see. You open your mouth. Get told. Switch to another sock puppet. Open your mouth again. Get told. Then try to attack me more. Wow.

And my articles have to be completely rewritten? Ahahaha. None of them have been. Any fighting has been by people trying to insert plagiarism or other problems and then a large portion of the community coming out against them.

Articles like Samuel Johnson haven't changed. You are a piss poor troll.

Hmmm. Well, as someone who of course isn't a sockpuppet, I agree that Ottava lacks reading comprehension. I haven't bothered to check whether Samuel Johnson has been altered much from his version, but Detective clearly said "so many of his WP articles", not "all his WP articles".

Hmmm. Well, as someone who of course isn't a sockpuppet, I agree that Ottava lacks reading comprehension. I haven't bothered to check whether Samuel Johnson has been altered much from his version, but Detective clearly said "so many of his WP articles", not "all his WP articles".

To Autumn led to an FAR about the changes because it introduced many problems. It was not "fixed" with the community preferring my version. There is a great comment by Rlevse (ha!) that summarizes the concern of the community regarding the changes: " I've restored the pre-TFA version. A lot of the subsequent edits are really don't do much. For one thing, Amandajm inserted Sparknotes as refs and they're still there. That's utterly astounding. I'm not going to get into the merits of point of view A vs B, but a FA with sparknotes as refs is not a better version."

One is not "many" so your point is a failure. There are also none that "had" to be rewritten, so your point fails yet again. But you are a sock puppet, so you started off seeking failure.

What a fucking troll! Anyone who you don't like must be a sockpuppet. Of whom? Santa Claus?

And you claimed "And my articles have to be completely rewritten? Ahahaha. None of them have been." So the fact that one has been proves you're a bloody liar.

Really? You were outed as socking on this forum a long time ago. You have been proven wrong by everyone here who was a long standing member of the community and known to not be the same person. It isn't a coincidence that the only people agreeing with you are blatantly lying (like you have done), pretend to be British when they clearly aren't, and are all new members with no linked accounts. Funny how that works out.

It isn't a coincidence that the only people agreeing with you are blatantly lying (like you have done), pretend to be British when they clearly aren't, and are all new members with no linked accounts. Funny how that works out.

Hey, totally wrong again, as always. I can trace my British ancestry back certainly through several generations. Do you have any ancestry that you'd admit to?

This post has been edited by Retrospect: Thu 22nd November 2012, 12:46pm

It isn't a coincidence that the only people agreeing with you are blatantly lying (like you have done), pretend to be British when they clearly aren't, and are all new members with no linked accounts. Funny how that works out.

Hey, totally wrong again, as always. I can trace my British ancestry back certainly through several generations. Do you have any ancestry that you'd admit to?

You obviously never paid attention to this forum, because I have both detailed my ancestry plus multiple people here have shown that you are faking your Britness. For your information, I can trace my ancestry back to Ulrich Renz, who served under Maximillion I. The line had quite a bit of Prussian nobility in it before and after, and I can trace it back to Burgundians who served at various points as mercenaries for the Romans and others. Going forward, I am directly connected to Henry Lightner, drummer of Fort McHenry during the battle, and I am cousin to two bishops (Eccleston and Carroll) along with cousins to the Calvert and Charles Carroll line. My family history fills more binders than Mitt Romney's women.

You obviously never paid attention to this forum, because I have both detailed my ancestry plus multiple people here have shown that you are faking your Britness. For your information, I can trace my ancestry back to Ulrich Renz, who served under Maximillion I.

Hmm. A search does not reveal that you have ever mentioned this on WR before, unless you did so in some secret forum. However, this ancestry you are now claiming scarcely amounts to being British, so it is scarcely relevant. And of course you cannot accuse me of being a new member, and if i do not link to my (never blocked) username on WP, nor does The Joy. The Joy is of course right to point out that we should now stop this thread, which has generated vastly more heat than light.

You obviously never paid attention to this forum, because I have both detailed my ancestry plus multiple people here have shown that you are faking your Britness. For your information, I can trace my ancestry back to Ulrich Renz, who served under Maximillion I.

Hmm. A search does not reveal that you have ever mentioned this on WR before, unless you did so in some secret forum. However, this ancestry you are now claiming scarcely amounts to being British, so it is scarcely relevant. And of course you cannot accuse me of being a new member, and if i do not link to my (never blocked) username on WP, nor does The Joy. The Joy is of course right to point out that we should now stop this thread, which has generated vastly more heat than light.

I never claimed to be British. I have talked about my Prussian heritage a few times as well as other people I am related to. No matter what name you hop on, you are consistently illiterate. It is your tell. When you make yet another identity, try to pay more attention and maybe you wont be so easily found out.

No matter what name you hop on, you are consistently illiterate. It is your tell. When you make yet another identity, try to pay more attention and maybe you wont be so easily found out.

It is quite laughable that someone with such total lack of reading comprehension should call someone else illiterate. You keep making wild asertions which you can never justify when asked. You failed to substantiate your claim that Retrospect was outed as socking on this forum a long time ago (not surprising, as he never has been). Now you accuse me of being a sock, which is of course absurd. Now please let's do what The Joy says and just wrap up this nonsense.

Are you an idiot? I have over 2000 posts here. The "search" function doesn't necessarily find everything.

QUOTE

You keep making wild asertions which you can never justify when asked.

It is "assertions" not "asertions." When you are calling others illiterate, please attempt to spell words in a proper manner. Then, when you try to attack me like you did, don't hallucinate first or use drugs. Otherwise, you get the blather like you put before. I know you are trying to wake up early to post so it seems like you are in Europe (really, 7 AM is the best you can do? I have earlier posts here than the faux Brit sock ring you are trying to fool people with) but it is no excuse for you making things up. You have been proven wrong over and over, and no amount of holding your ears and saying "lalala" will change that fact.